If universal health care is so great...

[Oddball]

Man, I can't wait until the Mexicans take over America....I'm soooo going to jump the northern border and hang out in front of Home Depot in Winnipeg!

 

[Bern80]

Liberals make the rules that apply to the intellectually inferior conservatives. If it weren't for the Liberal states like New York and california the US is just a collection of right-wing, religious zealot farmers who don't particularily approve of coloured people..

At least you admit you're an elitist. Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward recovery. Keep at it.

 

[Jeremy]

Man, I can't wait until the Mexicans take over America....I'm soooo going to jump the northern border and hang out in front of Home Depot in Winnipeg!

LOL. We can start a launching point here in Fargo. With the thousands of Canadians that drive to Fargo to shop we can just hitch a ride in one of their Old Navy bags. piece o' cake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because you took the affirmative burden, Bern, meaning you have to support your claim. Yes, I understand the Constitution. The context of disagreement between us rests on originalist v. evolutionary approaches to the document. And I am aware there are many sites that agree with you and many that don't. That's all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What we have done my friend is exchange OUR opinions on what COTUS means. Cool, but neither of us is an expert, are we? So what I want is more than your opinion on COTUS. Bring evidence to support your opinion, please.

Since you beleive we are on the same footing why is it I must provide evidence and you don't?

He's a librul, which means that they're exempt from the rules which apply to everyone else.

And Dud is a conloon, who makes up rules as he goes along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Angle leads, in fact, by about 7% as Nevadans are becoming antsy about her position on social security, privitazation, massage for prison inmates and scientology, and so forth. Harry, I image, is sitting back and waiting for the debates that will allow the press to visualize for the viewing public. If she does not somehow get better, she will cut her own throat.

 

[MaggieMae]

And I reiterate for the cheap obstinate seats: CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS CLEAR FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE OR BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.

You want to play games of relativism and equivalency, find someone else more gullible, Big Meow.

So, in your backwards totalitarian mind, forcing people to buy a service provided by a private industry, under threat of fine and imprisonment, is fine because it's for the general welfare of the public. I bet our founding fathers would be really proud.

Did you know that "Gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

And for the definition of "Redundant" it says "See Redundant".

thanks Jeremy. Good to see I've ignored him still for good reasons. Terminal Stupidity can be contagious if we expose ourselves to it too long.

What dictionary do you use?

Definitions of gullible (adj)
gul·li·ble [ gúlləb'l ]
easily duped: tending to trust and believe people, and therefore easily tricked or deceived
Synonyms: naive, susceptible, innocent, trusting, credulous, accepting
See full definition · Encarta World English Dictionary

Definitions of redundant (adj)
re·dun·dant [ ri dúndənt ]
superfluous: not or no longer needed or wanted
repeating meaning: with the same meaning as a word used elsewhere in a passage and without a rhetorical purpose
backup: fitted as a backup component or system
Synonyms: laid off, let go, out of work, out of a job, jobless, fired, dismissed, terminated
See full definition · Encarta World English Dictionary

 

[JakeStarkey]

So, in your backwards totalitarian mind, forcing people to buy a service provided by a private industry, under threat of fine and imprisonment, is fine because it's for the general welfare of the public. I bet our founding fathers would be really proud.

Did you know that "Gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

And for the definition of "Redundant" it says "See Redundant".

thanks Jeremy. Good to see I've ignored him still for good reasons. Terminal Stupidity can be contagious if we expose ourselves to it too long.

What dictionary do you use?

Definitions of gullible (adj)
gul·li·ble [ gúlləb'l ]
easily duped: tending to trust and believe people, and therefore easily tricked or deceived
Synonyms: naive, susceptible, innocent, trusting, credulous, accepting
See full definition · Encarta World English Dictionary

Definitions of redundant (adj)
re·dun·dant [ ri dúndənt ]
superfluous: not or no longer needed or wanted
repeating meaning: with the same meaning as a word used elsewhere in a passage and without a rhetorical purpose
backup: fitted as a backup component or system
Synonyms: laid off, let go, out of work, out of a job, jobless, fired, dismissed, terminated
See full definition · Encarta World English Dictionary

Excellent descriptions of Big Fitz.

 

[Bern80]

Because you took the affirmative burden, Bern, meaning you have to support your claim. Yes, I understand the Constitution. The context of disagreement between us rests on originalist v. evolutionary approaches to the document. And I am aware there are many sites that agree with you and many that don't. That's all.

Those that are pro evolutionary or living document are trying to rationalize something they already know the document doesn't allow. And actually it is YOU that is arguing an affirmative, You know YES vs. NO. You are arguing YES the constituion does allow the fed to provide healthcare. You clearly don't understand the constituion and how the framers meant for it to be interpreted. It is a LIMITING document. They made it that way on purpose to protect themselves from the tyranny their anccestors fled. So that the government they had created could not become tyrannical (yet we managed to anyway thanks to your 'evolutionary' friends and/or just plain ignoring it). Limiting means that what the government CAN do is what is outlined with the understanding that what is not there the governemnt can not do.

And why can't you at least answer a simple question? Why do you think what you posted supports the position that the federal government can provide healthcare?

 

[MaggieMae]

And I reiterate for the cheap obstinate seats: CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS CLEAR FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE OR BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.

Since this appears to be roughly the amount of substance needed for an argument to fly in this thread, I'll pass the torch of sparring with Big Fitz to you.

oh and you attempt to do so with such grace.

happy to debunk your junk law anyday.

Yours is an opinion only also, genius. Although you're from the right, you're not always right just because of it. Good grief, what an egomaniac you are.

 

[MaggieMae]

And I reiterate for the cheap obstinate seats: CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS CLEAR FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE OR BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.

Since this appears to be roughly the amount of substance needed for an argument to fly in this thread, I'll pass the torch of sparring with Big Fitz to you.

Substance schmubstance.

Your "pricing externalities" twaddle got torn to shreds, now your progressive Fabian doctrine of "living rules" (more accurately described as no rules) has take a pretty fair hit amidships.

Handing off to the forum's fake republican hardly recommends your case as anywhere near as substantive as you'd like to believe.

Torn to shreds??? If it makes you feel better to think so...

 

[Oddball]

Well, he did fail to answer how gubmint suffers from and/or "prices out" any of the externalities of their failed policies.

Then again, the term and concept of extrnalities is probably so far over your head that you wouldn't know one way or the other.

 

[MaggieMae]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.

Why? Because it would take a 2/3 approval vote of the house and senate which is impossible with the polarization in congress. Then it would have to go before all the state legislatures which would take about 5 years. Then if it was approved, a healthcare bill would have to be passed. By the time anything got into law most of the country would be without healthcare.

The wisdom of our founders in action. Slow STUPID law to a crawl. Too bad the fabian progressives have figured this out and are playing long game too to radically transform us into a fascist police state with them on top.

HEY!! The Dude is so self-centered, I'm sure he is very picky about people stealing his favorite slogans. "Fabian" is his and his alone. I'm sure you could find more up-to-date philosophers espousing the same doctrine and commandeer that as your own special reference.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written. You far right reactionaries and libertarians cry boo hoo because knowlegable people laugh at you when you start stuttering. You simply can't carry the argument.

And then the 2nd Amendment case is carried through incorporation by a 'conservative' court.

Every moderate and centrist Republican American is laughing at you fools.

Oh....okay. Where exactly?

As far as constitutional hypocrisy how are you lefties at the very least not doing exactly the same? You imply that we want Article i Section 8 stricly interpreted but claim we want the 2nd ammendment loosely interpreted. Well smart guy you're doing exactly the opposite. You want article 1 section 8 broadly interpreted preferring we just skip over those very specific enumerated powers of the fed while wanting the the 2nd strictly interpreted wanting us to organize militia's if we want to own guns. Pot meet kettle.

Well not to worry. The conservative activists serving on the USSC solved the problem of the Second Amendment's ambiguity just the other day.

 

[MaggieMae]

OK, guys, break's over...Gotta get these moved over to Jake the Fake's house, pronto!

Did you get off your ass, get dressed, take a bath and jump in to help? (Love these strict constitutionalists who preach from their recliners.)

 

[MaggieMae]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.

Um, because getting an Amendment to the Constitution is not all that easy. Just ask the supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Equal Rights Amendment

The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923 to affirm that women and men have equal rights under the law, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution.

The ERA was passed out of Congress in 1972 and has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, it is possible that the ERA could become the 28th Amendment. The ERA could also be ratified by restarting the traditional process of passage by a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by ratification by legislatures in three-quarters (38) of the 50 states.

Wow!! 87 years young and still kickin'

Immie

At some point someone needs to call for a Constitutional Convention, which would be quicker, and could resolve ALL the myriad issues that seriously need amendments.

 

[MaggieMae]

What we have done my friend is exchange OUR opinions on what COTUS means. Cool, but neither of us is an expert, are we? So what I want is more than your opinion on COTUS. Bring evidence to support your opinion, please.

Their basic argument that nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that the federal government has the authority to provide health care is simpy lame. Using that logic, the Constitution is remiss in its authority to do any number of other things taken for granted. Such as spending billions on space exploration. (Sorry, that's the only example that always immediately pops into my head. There are, of course, hundreds of other enacted policies that are not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, but because they have never been constitutionally challenged, they remain as accepted as lawful.)

 

[MaggieMae]

Man, I can't wait until the Mexicans take over America....I'm soooo going to jump the northern border and hang out in front of Home Depot in Winnipeg!

LOL. We can start a launching point here in Fargo. With the thousands of Canadians that drive to Fargo to shop we can just hitch a ride in one of their Old Navy bags. piece o' cake.

I'll gladly charter a bus for you to go now. (But my friends and relatives in Canada don't really take kindly to right-wing ideologues from the U.S., so fair warning. I won't pay for a return trip.) Oh, and by the way, Canada has strict gun control laws (and penalties) that you might want to check out first.

 

[Bern80]

What we have done my friend is exchange OUR opinions on what COTUS means. Cool, but neither of us is an expert, are we? So what I want is more than your opinion on COTUS. Bring evidence to support your opinion, please.

Their basic argument that nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that the federal government has the authority to provide health care is simpy lame. Using that logic, the Constitution is remiss in its authority to do any number of other things taken for granted. Such as spending billions on space exploration. (Sorry, that's the only example that always immediately pops into my head. There are, of course, hundreds of other enacted policies that are not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, but because they have never been constitutionally challenged, they remain as accepted as lawful.)

What about THIS argument? What's your point? No shit sherlock, there are lots of laws on the books that aren't constitutional. That might be the hole in the constitution itself. It doesn't make any provisions for congress deciding to simply ignore it. That's realy what happens more often than not. Health care being an excellent example. Barely anyone on the left or even right argued whether or not taxing people for not buying health insurance was constitutional. They just did it. I think checking the constitutionality of a proposal simply doesn't occur to them.

 

[Bern80]

At some point someone needs to call for a Constitutional Convention, which would be quicker, and could resolve ALL the myriad issues that seriously need amendments.

Now there is an actual good idea. There has to be some requirement in place, a panel or bi-annual reconciliation....something tha forces ALL of the boffoons in office to abide by the constitution. Because as I said before I don't think as far as that body is concerned, it has anything to do with how it's interpreted. I think they just plain ignore it and it doesn't occur to them to even consult it. Apparently taking an oath to abide by it simply isn't good enough.